"In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or midwife, then all that was required was that one of the parents send in a birth certificate to be filed. The birth certificate could be filed by mail. There appears to have been no requirement for the parent to actually physically appear before the local registrar of the district. It would have been very easy for a relative to forge an absent parents signature to a form and mail it in. In addition, if a claim was made that neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as above provided is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local registrar shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate. (Section 57-8&9) I asked the Dept of Health what they currently ask for (in 2008) to back up a parents claim that a child was born in Hawaii. I was told that all they required was a proof of residence in Hawaii (e.g. a drivers license [We know from interviews with her friends on Mercer Island in Washington State that Ann Dunham had acquired a drivers license by the summer of 1961 at the age of 17] or telephone bill) and pre-natal (statement or report that a woman was pregnant) and post-natal (statement or report that a new-born baby has been examined) certification by a physician. On further enquiry, the employee that I spoke to informed me that the pre-natal and post-natal certifications had probably not been in force in the 60s." ... http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=2697

The image discovered earlier, it seems, is the document submitted as an application for the birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama II. Of course this is only a theory, until it can be examined and verified.

I am beginning to wonder if suing Factcheck.org might be a better idea. Forcing them to prove that FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate.

5
posted on 12/11/2009 9:47:05 PM PST
by Ingtar
(Asses far Left of me; Rinos to the Left; FReepin' on the Right with you.)

There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obamas official birth certificate. State law (Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.”

These are the words of the head of the Hawaii Dept of Vital Statistics in 2008.

Every citizen of the United States, every voter in a presidential election, has a “tangible interest in the vital record.” Obama did not run to be governor of Hawaii, nor to hold any other office within that state. He ran for an office that has to do with every citizen of every state.

For the state of Hawaii to withhold that particular document from the secretaries of the several states and/or the election officials who determine who may or may not be placed on ballots is wrong as it could result in subversion of the federal Constitution. This should be ruled on by the United States Supreme Court, since this is an interstate question, not merely a Hawaii state question.

7
posted on 12/11/2009 9:53:26 PM PST
by John Leland 1789
(But then, I'm accused of just being a troll, so . . . .)

I am beginning to wonder if suing Factcheck.org might be a better idea. Forcing them to prove that FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate.

The image discovered earlier, it seems, is the document submitted as an application for the birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama II. Of course this is only a theory, until it can be examined and verified.

It can't be real.

It hasn't been stamped by the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit.

Cheers!

18
posted on 12/11/2009 10:52:44 PM PST
by grey_whiskers
(The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)

There were procedures in place that allowed a Hawaiian resident to register a birth at the DoH, -even if there had not been either a midwife or physician present. A parent could submit a signed statement that would be reviewed by some mid level bureaucrat, and then approved.

My guess is that there is no actual long form birth certificate; and the *source* document is a signed statement by the mother.

Like you said, that would destroy the narrative regarding Kopiolani Hospital. And prove that Barry's been lying to the country all along.

I am beginning to wonder if suing Factcheck.org might be a better idea. Forcing them to prove that FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate.

The statement from FactCheck.org probably refers to a paper copy of the fake COLB, which they refer to as an original birth certificate.

In order to believe one of the many versions that Obama has given over the years, you would have to believe that inspite of the fact that his mother was on welfare, his grandparents had no influence or wealth, he had poor grades, he took drugs he was able to get a full scholarship to Occidental and then to both Columbia and Harvard without the help of anyone?

In order to get a full scholarship to any of the universities he would have had to meet some criteria other than being half black. I think he applied as a foreigner at a time when scholarships were being given to students from Africa on a regular basis. Those were the only scholarships that would not have been based on grades. Even if he had a benefactor who was willing to pay his full way, his grades may not have allowed him to be accepted at that college without help. (IE Frank Marshall asking one of the University professors who was part of the underground.)

I agree with you, and I also believe that stringent laws about all of your points should be enacted. People who hold NATIONAL office should not expect much privacy, much less all the “privacy” BHO has gotten away with.

At least Ann didn't claim to have examined and handled it like O'really and fartcheck did. She did call us cranks and a few other choice words which will keep me from buying any of her books until she gets with the program ;)

State law (Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.

http://tw0.us/5fm

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Letter Re Obama Eligibility to Texas Secretary of State

The fact that the Hawaii Revised Statutes permit anyone with a "direct and tangible interest" in the birth certificate ought to mean that anyone can obtain Mr. Obama's birth certificate since we all have a direct and tangible interest in it.

43
posted on 12/12/2009 12:33:34 PM PST
by OafOfOffice
(Constitution is not neutral.It was designed to take the government off the backs of people-Douglas)

You have made a point of claiming that you believe in an “open society” and you have assertively backed Barack Obama’s candidacy. At present, the State of Hawaii has violated the requirements of its Open Records Law and § 338-18 of its statute concerning birth records by refusing to provide Barack Obamas birth certificate to every American. Yet, every American has a direct and tangible interest in seeing this information first hand. I have written to Mr. Obama and asked that he open this information to society and he has not responded. Instead, Obama supporters have offered a fraudulent birth certificate via a Web site. I am curious as to how Mr. Obama’s willingness to engage in manipulative secrecy jibes with your belief in an open society. Do you continue to support Mr. Obama’s candidacy despite his indifference to an open society?

Some have argued that Mr. Obama’s birth certificate is not problematic and that he is merely manipulating public opinion, intending to reveal favorable information at an opportune time. If so, is this sort of political manipulation the foundation of your interpretation of what the term “open society” ought to mean?

Sincerely,

Mitchell Langbert

July 14, 2008

44
posted on 12/12/2009 12:38:55 PM PST
by OafOfOffice
(Constitution is not neutral.It was designed to take the government off the backs of people-Douglas)

“The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:...”

If the authors of the statute had aimed to limit access to the list, they could have stated that the list is exhaustive and exclusive in the statute, but the statute DOES NOT so state. Hence, Ms. Okubo is incorrect in claiming that the people who have “direct and tangible interest” are defined in the statute. The statute merely states those who should be construed to have such an interest (a safe harbor list) but DOES NOT STATE that others may not also have “direct and tangible interest”.

Since all Americans have a “direct and tangible interest” in knowing what Mr. Obama’s birth certificate states, you and the Department of Health are violating § 338-18 by refusing to provide a certified copy of the birth certificate to any American.

45
posted on 12/12/2009 12:43:59 PM PST
by OafOfOffice
(Constitution is not neutral.It was designed to take the government off the backs of people-Douglas)

He is shrouded in mystery and that is so wrong on every front. It’s one thing for a celebrity to manufacture a past, but it’s quite another for a public office holder, particularly the holder of our nation’s highest office.

This man has never been vetted, and yet the US Senate portends to vet his cabinet. For all the scrutiny Obama has received, he might as well be one of his czars, or the head czar. Gee, I think I’m onto something here. Czar Hussein!

I’m missing something: his hippie, left-wing radical mother was a US citizen, so what bearing does his father’s British status have on Barack’s eligibility?

I like your thinking with regard to your hunch that he used his adopted Sotero/Indonesia to gain status and entry into US and the universites and that lead to some uncomfortable revelations.

I followed your links:

Yes, the missing Columbia years, wherein nobody remembers him and who the hell paid his tuition. I recall reading several articles that speculated a variety of people and far left sources.

The Russian hold on him and Lugar is most interesting and the untimely death of Lt. Harris raises even more suspicions.

I can summarize what scares and irks the hell out of me: I know the man is anti-American. It oozes from him. He can’t hide it, no matter what the teleprompter tells him to say. Yet, here he is, the president of the United States and our military’s Commander in Chief, not only privy to everything that keeps our coutry and the free world safe, but also in charge of ordering our military into action and in charge of our nuclear weapons.

You know how every decade or so, our FBI or CIA discover a traitor or a network of traitors within its ranks and we subsequently learn that years of intelligence and secret weaponry have been compromised? Well, think about the complete damage that can be done were the top man anti-American.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.